CreatorTitleDescriptionPublication NumberOrganizationPublication DateEffective DateExpiration DateUploaded On
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V HUGHES - 59 MJ 948On 21 May 2004, a panel of this Court affirmed findings of guilty in this case of one specification of dereliction of duty in violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and one specification of obtaining services under false pretenses and one specification of dishonorable failure to pay a just debt, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. A majority of the panel, of which I was a member, also affirmed the approved sentence of 170 days confinement and a dismissal, with all confinement in excess of forty-five days suspended by the Convening Authority, as required by the pretrial agreement. The Chief Judge dissented from the sentence determination, concluding that a dismissal was inappropriately severe. United States v. Hughes, 59 M.J. 948, 952-953 (C.G.Ct.Crim.App. 2004). On 3 June 2004, Appellant moved the Court for en banc reconsideration of the decision with respect to sentence. That motion was denied by an order of this Court on 4 June 2004. However, the Court determined that the original panel would reconsider the appropriateness of Appellant’s sentence.Docket No. 1196Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals6/24/20046/24/200410/18/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V COCKRELL - 60 MJ 501Appellant was tried by general court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of the following offenses: one specification of unauthorized absence for one day, in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of wrongful use of marijuana on divers occasions, in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ; and one specification of wrongfully receiving child pornography, one specification of wrongfully possessing child pornography, and one specification of watching child pornography aboard a Coast Guard facility, under circumstances prejudicial to good order and discipline, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to a dishonorable discharge, confinement for eighteen months, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to E-1. The Convening Authority reduced the dishonorable discharge to a bad-conduct discharge, which he approved along with the remainder of the adjudged sentence. Pursuant to the terms of the pretrial agreement, the Convening Authority also suspended execution of confinement in excess of ten months for a period of eighteen months from the date of sentencing on 10 July 2003.Docket No. 1199Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals6/18/20046/18/200410/18/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V TURNER - PER CURIAMAppellant was tried by general court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of three specifications of indecent acts with a female under sixteen years of age, in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Appellant was sentenced to a bad-conduct discharge, reduction to E-1, and confinement for one year. The Convening Authority approved the adjudged sentence, which was permitted under the terms of the pretrial agreement.Docket No. 1206Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals6/3/20046/3/200410/18/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V HUGHES - 60 MJ 509Appellant was tried by general court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to a pretrial agreement, Appellant entered pleas of guilty to one specification of dereliction of duty in violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and one specification of obtaining services under false pretenses and one specification of dishonorable failure to pay a just debt in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The military judge accepted Appellant’s pleas, entered findings of guilty to those offenses, and sentenced Appellant to confinement for 170 days and dismissal from the Coast Guard. Appellant also entered pleas of not guilty to two specifications of forgery in violation of Article 123, UCMJ, and one specification of unauthorized absence in violation of Article 86, UCMJ. The latter charges and specifications were withdrawn and dismissed with prejudice. The military judge also recommended that the Convening Authority disapprove the dismissal as a matter of clemency. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged but suspended confinement in excess of forty-five days until 3 July 2004 as required by the pretrial agreement.Docket No. 1196Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals5/21/20045/21/200410/18/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V HOLZ - 59 MJ 926Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to a pretrial agreement, Appellant entered pleas of guilty to one specification of wrongful use of marijuana, two specifications of wrongful distribution of marijuana, and one specification of wrongful introduction of marijuana onto an installation under the control of the armed forces, in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The military judge accepted Appellant’s pleas, entered findings of guilty to those offenses, and sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, sixty days confinement, and reduction to E-1. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged, as allowed by the pretrial agreement. The Convening Authority credited Appellant with eight days of confinement pursuant to United States v. Allen, 17 M.J. 126 (C.M.A. 1984).Docket No. 1198Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals5/18/20045/18/200410/18/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V ABDUL-RAHMAN - 59 MJ 924Appellant was tried by general court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of the following offenses: four specifications of failure to obey a lawful general order by engaging in sexually explicit behavior with four different females on board USCGC RUSH, and one specification of violating a lawful general order by wrongfully possessing alcohol aboard USCGC RUSH, in violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of sodomy with a female third class cadet, in violation of Article 125, UCMJ; one specification of unlawfully entering a female berthing area with the intent to commit a criminal offense, in violation of Article 130, UCMJ; and two specifications of indecent acts with another, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The judge sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge and confinement for 180 days, which was approved by the Convening Authority, unaffected by the pretrial agreement.Docket No. 1192Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals5/14/20045/14/200410/18/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V WHITESIDE - 59 MJ 903Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of the following offenses: one specification of unauthorized absence of 283 days terminated by apprehension, in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of making a false official statement, in violation of Article 107, UCMJ; and one specification of using marijuana in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for nine months, and reduction to E-1. The Convening Authority approved the sentence but suspended confinement in excess of 160 days, in accordance with the pretrial agreement.Docket No. 1191Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals4/29/20044/29/200410/18/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V DOBSON - 59 MJ 751Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of wrongfully soliciting another to violate 14 U.S.C. § 88(c) (2003) by communicating a false distress message to the Coast Guard, in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The judge sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for one month, reduction to E-1, and forfeiture of $767 pay for one month, which was approved by the Convening Authority, unaffected by the pretrial agreement’s sentence terms.Docket No. 1185Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals3/5/20043/5/200410/18/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V ST PIERRE - 59 MJ 750Appellant has moved for reconsideration of this Court’s decision of 21 January 2004 affirming the findings of guilty and a sentence, which included an approved bad-conduct discharge. In his motion of 19 February 2004, Appellant asserts that after the case was referred to this Court, but before our decision was rendered, Appellant was discharged from the Coast Guard with a general discharge. He now asks this Court to determine, upon reconsideration, whether the general discharge operated as a remission of the bad-conduct discharge, and requests leave to file a brief on this issue. In a response, the Government has joined Appellant’s motion for reconsideration, but has taken a different position on the issue presented. The Government asserts that the discharge was a legal nullity, having been issued without authority, and that, upon reconsideration, we should determine whether the discharge was valid. If we conclude that it was valid, the Government wants this Court to then decide whether the administrative discharge operates to remit the bad-conduct discharge. The Government also requests leave to file a brief on the issue. Mindful of the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529 (1999), it is by the Court this 5th day of March 2004.DOCKET NO. 1193Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals3/5/20043/5/200410/18/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V MILEY - PER CURIAMAppellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of the following offenses: one specification of failure to obey a lawful general order, in violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of making false official statements, in violation of Article 107, UCMJ; and one specification of larceny, in violation of Article 121, UCMJ.Docket No. 1194Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals3/3/20043/3/200410/18/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V FAY - 59 MJ 747Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of the following offenses: one specification of wrongfully distributing MDA and MDMA, the Schedule I controlled substances commonly known as “Ecstasy,” and MET, a Schedule II controlled substance; and one specification of wrongful possession of marijuana, all in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); and one specification of assault, in violation of Article 128, UCMJ.Docket No. 1189Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals3/3/20043/3/200410/18/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V GARCIA - PER CURIAMAppellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of the following offenses: two specifications of unauthorized absence, of one day and ten days, in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of flight from apprehension in violation of Article 95, UCMJ; and one specification of wrongful use of marijuana and methamphetamine, in violation of Article 112a.Docket No. 1195Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals2/4/20042/4/200410/18/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V ST PIERRE - 59 MJ 570Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of the following offenses: one specification of attempted introduction of Valium, a schedule IV controlled substance, onto a military installation with intent to distribute, in violation of Article 80, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of failure to go to appointed place of duty, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ; one specification of possession of marijuana, in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ; and two specifications of breaking restriction, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ.Docket No. 1193Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals1/21/20041/21/200410/18/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V BURRIS - 59 MJ 700Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of the following offenses: one specification of attempted importation into the customs territory of the United States of 500 milligrams of Methandrostenolone, a Schedule III controlled substance, in violation of Article 80, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of dereliction of duty, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ; one specification of making a false official statement, in violation of the of Article 107, UCMJ; one specification of larceny in violation of Article 121, UCMJ; three specifications of making and uttering worthless checks in violation of Article 123a, UCMJ; and two specifications of dishonorable failure to pay debts, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 120 days, and reduction to E-1, which the Convening Authority approved, as permitted by the pretrial agreement.Docket No. 1180Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals1/16/20041/16/200410/18/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V COKER - PER CURIAMAppellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of the following offenses: two specifications of unauthorized absence in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of insubordination in violation of Article 91, UCMJ; one specification of wrongful possession of marijuana and one specification of wrongful use of cocaine, in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ; and one specification of larceny of a cellular telephone, a laptop computer, a car television, an ATM card, and U.S. currency, of a value of about $3,000 in violation of Article 121, UCMJ.Docket No. 1188Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals1/12/20041/12/200410/18/2017
Page 24 of 34

Oral Arguments


Pursuant to U.S. Department of Defense Standard carrying out Article 140a, Uniform Code of Military Justice [10 U.S.C. s. 940a] (revised, January 2025), an audio recording of an oral argument will typically be made publicly accessible. Audio recordings for oral arguments after the effective date of this new rule (January 2025) are below. As part of this requirement, a military service provides a mechanism by which a written transcript may be made available upon request. Contact HQS-DG-LST-CG-LMJ@uscg.mil with the reason for the request. 

 

Parties Docket Audio File Date
U.S. v. Ray 1498 MP3 2025/05/13
U.S. v. Kelley 1495 MP3 2025/03/26